i-STAT Method Comparison Data
3 followers
0 Likes
Hi all,
I am part of a large system that performs testing on various i-STAT cartridges. We are finding multiple analytes have a bias on the CHEM8+ and CG4+ cartridges. Have any of you seen a bias on any of the waived cartridges on the market (e.g. Troponin, Creat, PT/INR, etc.)? If so, would any of you be willing to send your method comparison data to me? We are considering pulling these instruments across the entire system and want to have all the data available to present to clinicians with our decision.
Thanks for your consideration.
3 Replies
Reply
Subgroup Membership is required to post Replies
Join POCT Listserv now
Suggested Posts
| Topic | Replies | Likes | Views | Participants | Last Reply |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| iSTAT in NICU -chem 8, CG4 | 5 | 0 | 260 | ||
| Rotem Sigma Validation Help | 1 | 0 | 105 | ||
| Hemochron Sig Elite use outside of manufacturer temperature range | 2 | 0 | 173 |
Jessica,
My first question is what is your Chemistry method?
We have a slight known bias on TCO2 and Creat against an Architect from Abbott. These bias's are known from install.
Deanna Bogner
210-297-9657
We have been comparing to the Architect and the ABL800.
Thanks for your reply!
Sent via Groupsite Mobile.
Hi Jessica,
I think many on this page will feel your pain, regarding discovering differences/bias across methods. Long story short - I think a certain amount of bias can be inevitable, especially when the chemistry of the methods differ greatly, as iSTAT does from most "big" lab analyzers. And while we laboratorians tend to think of our big "lab" analyzers as our best technology - are they really? I can pull SD/CV figures on certain iSTAT chemistries (e.g., K+) that beat our main lab method. Point is, the decision can become quite complex, and may come down to more than just the issue of bias. Consider that there are many, many health systems using iSTAT, and have for years. It is proven technology. Proficiency records from various agencies show that the technology performs as expected to, as many, many facilities contribute to those records. Your decision may come down to not just that you've discovered bias, but, well, is it enough bias? Will it make a difference in a clinical decision or interpretation? Lastly, can you identify separately in your EMR, the results generated from iSTAT as opposed to your main lab, so that clinicians are clearly informed of an iSTAT value? It may come down to implementing solutions such as these, rather than retracting all the benefits of having a quick bedside test by pulling the technology altogether. In the end, you may be doing more harm than good.